Chris Hayes: I'm 'Uncomfortable' Calling Fallen Military 'Heroes'

[JimBowie1958]

The glorification of war is not a part of the Anglo culture so much.

We dont do parades that show off our latest weaponry like so many countries. We would rather keep those capabilities to ourselves and use them only if we have to to greater advantage because they are largely unknown.

But here in the US, there is a distaste for standing armies that the Cold War gave an excuse for and the War on Terror another long toleration of.

But I would prefer that our armed forces on land be limited to elite quick response forces, critically positioned regulars and a large reserve of volunteers, along with a strong navy and air force which cant be so quickly mobilized and readied. I think this is the feeling of most Americans.

For Chris to bring this 'glorification of war' up seems to suggest he is not appreciative of the vast differences between the US and the Euopean cultures from which our ancestors fled.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually I've never heard of this idiot before, but thats because he on MSNBC

True to that liberal penchant of discounting the brave men and women that serve in our nation's armed forces, I introduce to you a lowly personage named Chris Hayes, a left-wing MSNBC host whose show "Up" airs on the weekend.

This weekend Hayes felt compelled to warn everyone that calling our troops "heroes" is something that should make us all "uncomfortable."

Video...

Chris Hayes: I'm 'Uncomfortable' Calling Fallen Military 'Heroes' | NewsBusters.org

This is just a right wing tactic. Fact is, when you look at Republicans records on voting for or against the troops, even guys like John McCain vote against the troops 80% of the time. The Democrats for for the troops 80% of the time. Check military vet organizations that give grades to politicians on their voting records and Republcans get D's and Democrats get B's.

Republicans vote for the military and war 100% of the time, not the troops. The troops they shit on. Fuck who cares about this guy? What is the GOP's voting record on voting for or against the troops? The Great Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about now controls the GOP.

 

[Lakhota]

The glorification of war is not a part of the Anglo culture so much.

We dont do parades that show off our latest weaponry like so many countries. We would rather keep those capabilities to ourselves and use them only if we have to to greater advantage because they are largely unknown.

But here in the US, there is a distaste for standing armies that the Cold War gave an excuse for and the War on Terror another long toleration of.

But I would prefer that our armed forces on land be limited to elite quick response forces, critically positioned regulars and a large reserve of volunteers, along with a strong navy and air force which cant be so quickly mobilized and readied. I think this is the feeling of most Americans.

For Chris to bring this 'glorification of war' up seems to suggest he is not appreciative of the vast differences between the US and the Euopean cultures from which our ancestors fled.

I seriously doubt he thought it through that far prior to his comment, but I bet he will in the future.

 

[sealybobo]

Clinton showed us we didn't need to put US Soldiers into harms way to win a conflict. I don't think one soldier died in action in Kosovo. Only military accidents killed any Americans like when a helicopter goes down or a tragic accident that was not in a battle, or friendly fire. Like only 2 Americans died I believe. Then Bush put us in an old fashion war because he wanted to play war. Fucking idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

UPDATE: Chris Hayes issued a statement on Monday apologizing for his comments:

On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.

As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.

But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.

Chris Hayes Apologizes For Saying He Feels 'Uncomfortable' Calling Killed Soldiers 'Heroes' (VIDEO)

Now that he was big enough to admit he was wrong can you admit you were?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm serious. What does he apologize for? Inartfully trying to make a very complex point?

IMHO, he can apologize for hurting some people's feelings by trying to have an intelligent discussion on a very sensitive issue on a day not meant for very intelligent discussions on certain very sensitive issues.

Funny, I actually posted a link to a liberal who managed to have an intelligent conversation about a complex point without looking like an idiot, and he did it in less than 140 characters. Maybe the problem here is that the MSNBC idiot is an idiot.

Well not literally an idiot, right?

More of an over-educated fool who cant help but give away too much from time to time?

I stand by what I said.

 

[sealybobo]

The glorification of war is not a part of the Anglo culture so much.

We dont do parades that show off our latest weaponry like so many countries. We would rather keep those capabilities to ourselves and use them only if we have to to greater advantage because they are largely unknown.

But here in the US, there is a distaste for standing armies that the Cold War gave an excuse for and the War on Terror another long toleration of.

But I would prefer that our armed forces on land be limited to elite quick response forces, critically positioned regulars and a large reserve of volunteers, along with a strong navy and air force which cant be so quickly mobilized and readied. I think this is the feeling of most Americans.

For Chris to bring this 'glorification of war' up seems to suggest he is not appreciative of the vast differences between the US and the Euopean cultures from which our ancestors fled.

We don't glorify war?

 

[Lakhota]

UPDATE: Chris Hayes issued a statement on Monday apologizing for his comments:

On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.

As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.

But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.

Chris Hayes Apologizes For Saying He Feels 'Uncomfortable' Calling Killed Soldiers 'Heroes' (VIDEO)

Now that he was big enough to admit he was wrong can you admit you were?

Wrong about what?

 

[JimBowie1958]

America glorifies war

Lord, where to start?

1. The two-faced VMW's (Vote Mongering Whores, aka politicians) exploit every crisis and believe, as one wag put it, such crisis should never go to waste. This is not a reflection on the honor, bravery and service of those who do fight, nor to be attributed to the general public as glorification. That is just not who we are, and our refusal to participate in the colonial scramble of the late 19th century and not keeping as colonies the many smaller nations we have successfully intervened in is evidence for that.

2. Truth is the first casualty of war and to suppose otherwise is kind of a childs view of reality that seems to suppose that wars can be won while keeping no secrets, doing no nefarious things of cloak and dagger form. Such childhood perspectives are good in fiction and fantasy, but not if one hopes to survive in the real world.

3. Glorification is meassured by what we present of ourselves in our media; our novels, movies and songs about our country. We dont goose step like most third world countries do and the Soviets and Chicoms. We dont constantly show case our military power in order to intimidate or strut. Our depictions of warfare tend to be tragic for both us and our foes. This is the exact opposite of glorification.

Chomsky wouldnt know glorification if it bit him in the ass apparently.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Funny, I actually posted a link to a liberal who managed to have an intelligent conversation about a complex point without looking like an idiot, and he did it in less than 140 characters. Maybe the problem here is that the MSNBC idiot is an idiot.

Well not literally an idiot, right?

More of an over-educated fool who cant help but give away too much from time to time?

I stand by what I said.

Not to belabor this but do yo really think the guy tests an IQ less than 80?

I have Aspergers Syndrome and I have a hard time distinguishing when people are being literal or not, and I am not fucking with you at all.

 

[Lakhota]

America glorifies war

Lord, where to start?

1. The two-faced VMW's (Vote Mongering Whores, aka politicians) exploit every crisis and believe, as one wag put it, such crisis should never go to waste. This is not a reflection on the honor, bravery and service of those who do fight, nor to be attributed to the general public as glorification. That is just not who we are, and our refusal to participate in the colonial scramble of the late 19th century and not keeping as colonies the many smaller nations we have successfully intervened in is evidence for that.

2. Truth is the first casualty of war and to suppose otherwise is kind of a childs view of reality that seems to suppose that wars can be won while keeping no secrets, doing no nefarious things of cloak and dagger form. Such childhood perspectives are good in fiction and fantasy, but not if one hopes to survive in the real world.

3. Glorification is meassured by what we present of ourselves in our media; our novels, movies and songs about our country. We dont goose step like most third world countries do and the Soviets and Chicoms. We dont constantly show case our military power in order to intimidate or strut. Our depictions of warfare tend to be tragic for both us and our foes. This is the exact opposite of glorification.

Chomsky wouldnt know glorification if it bit him in the ass apparently.

Chomsky's name is only mentioned twice in that article.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually I've never heard of this idiot before, but thats because he on MSNBC

True to that liberal penchant of discounting the brave men and women that serve in our nation's armed forces, I introduce to you a lowly personage named Chris Hayes, a left-wing MSNBC host whose show "Up" airs on the weekend.

This weekend Hayes felt compelled to warn everyone that calling our troops "heroes" is something that should make us all "uncomfortable."

Video...

Chris Hayes: I'm 'Uncomfortable' Calling Fallen Military 'Heroes' | NewsBusters.org

This is just a right wing tactic. Fact is, when you look at Republicans records on voting for or against the troops, even guys like John McCain vote against the troops 80% of the time. The Democrats for for the troops 80% of the time. Check military vet organizations that give grades to politicians on their voting records and Republcans get D's and Democrats get B's.

Republicans vote for the military and war 100% of the time, not the troops. The troops they shit on. Fuck who cares about this guy? What is the GOP's voting record on voting for or against the troops? The Great Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about now controls the GOP.

Oh, bullshit.

You know, when you change the subject like this it is a tacit admission that the facts are against you, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Clinton showed us we didn't need to put US Soldiers into harms way to win a conflict. I don't think one soldier died in action in Kosovo. Only military accidents killed any Americans like when a helicopter goes down or a tragic accident that was not in a battle, or friendly fire. Like only 2 Americans died I believe.

Wrong, twelve died.
United States military casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then Bush put us in an old fashion war because he wanted to play war. Fucking idiot.

You really betray your ignorance here. Bush was not so slick he talked millions into supporting military action in Afghanistan because he wanted to play general.

That is simply stupid, childish and niave.

 

[Lakhota]

Chris Hayes (journalist) - Wikipedia

 

[JimBowie1958]

America glorifies war

Lord, where to start?

1. The two-faced VMW's (Vote Mongering Whores, aka politicians) exploit every crisis and believe, as one wag put it, such crisis should never go to waste. This is not a reflection on the honor, bravery and service of those who do fight, nor to be attributed to the general public as glorification. That is just not who we are, and our refusal to participate in the colonial scramble of the late 19th century and not keeping as colonies the many smaller nations we have successfully intervened in is evidence for that.

2. Truth is the first casualty of war and to suppose otherwise is kind of a childs view of reality that seems to suppose that wars can be won while keeping no secrets, doing no nefarious things of cloak and dagger form. Such childhood perspectives are good in fiction and fantasy, but not if one hopes to survive in the real world.

3. Glorification is meassured by what we present of ourselves in our media; our novels, movies and songs about our country. We dont goose step like most third world countries do and the Soviets and Chicoms. We dont constantly show case our military power in order to intimidate or strut. Our depictions of warfare tend to be tragic for both us and our foes. This is the exact opposite of glorification.

Chomsky wouldnt know glorification if it bit him in the ass apparently.

Chomsky's name is only mentioned twice in that article.

How many times is necesary?

 

[Lakhota]

Lord, where to start?

1. The two-faced VMW's (Vote Mongering Whores, aka politicians) exploit every crisis and believe, as one wag put it, such crisis should never go to waste. This is not a reflection on the honor, bravery and service of those who do fight, nor to be attributed to the general public as glorification. That is just not who we are, and our refusal to participate in the colonial scramble of the late 19th century and not keeping as colonies the many smaller nations we have successfully intervened in is evidence for that.

2. Truth is the first casualty of war and to suppose otherwise is kind of a childs view of reality that seems to suppose that wars can be won while keeping no secrets, doing no nefarious things of cloak and dagger form. Such childhood perspectives are good in fiction and fantasy, but not if one hopes to survive in the real world.

3. Glorification is meassured by what we present of ourselves in our media; our novels, movies and songs about our country. We dont goose step like most third world countries do and the Soviets and Chicoms. We dont constantly show case our military power in order to intimidate or strut. Our depictions of warfare tend to be tragic for both us and our foes. This is the exact opposite of glorification.

Chomsky wouldnt know glorification if it bit him in the ass apparently.

Chomsky's name is only mentioned twice in that article.

How many times is necesary?

My point is that he didn't write the article, and is only briefly mentioned twice. That's all...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Chris Hayes (journalist) - Wikipedia

But the real important question is, 'Is he a damYankee?' (yes, that is one word).


The void of data seems to suggest that the answer is affirmative.

But just a guess, far be it from me to slander a man so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well not literally an idiot, right?

More of an over-educated fool who cant help but give away too much from time to time?

I stand by what I said.

Not to belabor this but do yo really think the guy tests an IQ less than 80?

I have Aspergers Syndrome and I have a hard time distinguishing when people are being literal or not, and I am not fucking with you at all.

I wouldn't know, but he is still an idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Chomsky's name is only mentioned twice in that article.

How many times is necesary?

My point is that he didn't write the article, and is only briefly mentioned twice. That's all...

Fairly large segments though:

Noam Chomsky calls the Vietnam War "a classic example of America's propaganda system." Major media scoundrels let doves and hawks debate, but "(b)oth sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression," but refused to admit it took place.

America's presence was called defense against enemy aggression. "Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish" a pro-US Saigon regime. Escalation led to invasion. Anti-war activists on principle were banned from public discourse. "The debate was essentially over tactics," not legitimacy.

Over time, anti-war sentiment grew, especially after the January 1968 Tet Offensive and June 1971 Pentagon Papers release. They showed the Johnson administration lied to the public and Congress. Gallup Polls showed 70% of Americans thought Vietnam was "fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake."

Opposition produced the "Vietnam Syndrome." Chomsky called it "a grave disease in the eyes of America's elites because people understand too much."

He also discussed months of propaganda preceding Congress voting on contra aid in March 1986. He reviewed 85 New York Times and Washington Post editorials and op-eds. All were anti-Sandanista. Opposition opinion was suppressed despite Nicaragua directing popular social services in contrast with repressive US allies Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Of course, all wars are based on lies. When major media scoundrels suppress truth, administrations get away with murder.

Lol, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was a lie? The German sneak attack on Russia in 1941 was a lie?

Where do these people get this bullshit?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I stand by what I said.

Not to belabor this but do yo really think the guy tests an IQ less than 80?

I have Aspergers Syndrome and I have a hard time distinguishing when people are being literal or not, and I am not fucking with you at all.

I wouldn't know, but he is still an idiot.

Lol, ok.